Free Community College Will Kill Higher Education in America

    Ah, a new year. A time for new beginnings, right?
    Well, if you're the Obama administration, then fuck no.
    On their everlasting quest to completely destroy America from the inside out, the Obama administration moved on to the next phase of their plan on 1/8/15. They've destroyed the military, (everlasting wars, lowered physical requirements so weaker soldiers will be on the battlefield, thus, a more likely chance of them or others around them dying, etc,), the middle class, (outsourcing millions of jobs, destroying higher education so they can't move up, standard of living way outpacing wages, etc,), the economy, (with Obamacare, tax loopholes for the 1% and the top corporations, banks, strangling small businesses with government red tape overload, etc,), America's reputation abroad, (the endless wars, spying on people of other countries on the internet, giving billions to terrorists, fascist and undemocratic regimes, etc,) the millennial generation, (by making underemployment the norm, thus them having no money to hardly anything in life, suffocating student debt, making it impossible for them to save any money, etc), and the civil liberties of Americans, (with the slow, gradual erosion and elimination of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments).
     (Billy May's voice): But that's not all!!
     Not content with the destruction mentioned above, the Obama administration has been chipping away at higher education for some time now. It is not a new front. From making it too expensive so students have to be in tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a degree that will do them nothing, from making the classes so easy that the students aren't learning the skills they need to know in order to be competitive in the weak, hyper-competitive job market, the Obama administration announced a new program that, if enacted, will spell the end of quality higher education in America:
     Community college will now be "free".

      At first glance, this sounds like a great idea. Higher education will now be more accessible to poor people, who need it the most to gain skills to get better jobs so they can move up in life. Students won't be burdened with so much student loan debt as before. But if you think about it for more than 2 seconds, (which is asking too much of the liberal retards who support this idea), you'll see that this is an absolutely horrible idea. Why? Because when you make something free, it is literally worth nothing. That's what the definition of free is. Think about having a college education that is, by definition, worth nothing. College diplomas will no longer help anyone in finding jobs or doing well in jobs. They'll be free bees, pieces of paper that say "I sat down in desks for a while, and I'm able to read and write."     

http://generationopportunity.org/issues/higher-ed/

    Here is just some of the highlights showing how utter pathetic higher education is in America:

• Only half of all college seniors believe their institution properly prepared them to enter the work force.
•  According to a 2014 USA Today poll, a  quarter of employers do not believe colleges have adequately prepped students for a job in their company, while 41 percent do not believe college graduates are prepared for customer service jobs.

     Having "free" community colleges will exacerbate the problems mentioned in the above article. The quality of higher education is already going down the tubes. Since students have to pay so much to enter classes, professors are afraid to fail anyone, because that would mean the student would have paid a lot of money for nothing. So, they make the classes super ridiculously easy, so that every student passes. But in making the class so easy, they won't be teaching anything. The students will learn nothing, no skills that they need in order to be competitive in the job market. That's how I'm able to get straights A's in my graduate school and at a community college for IT certification, at the same time, without even having to study or crack open a book at all. It's easier than elementary school. At least in elementary school I had to study to get good grades. In college now, I don't have to study at all. But I'm not learning anything, and I actually want to learn, I want to be challenged so that I will learn competitive job skills, but so far, through a whole year in a grad school and in community college, I have yet to learn a single damn thing. I ask the professors about this and they say there is nothing they can do about this because they cannot change how the course is taught.
    Having "free" community college will exacerbate this problem exponentially, damning an entire generation to poverty because there is no way they can learn just about anything in order to get jobs that will allow them to live on their own.      
    There is another major problem with the word "free."

 

    

    There is no such thing as "free." This new "free" community college still has to be paid for. Professors have to be paid, janitors have to be paid, police have to be paid, the electric bill still has to be paid. But student's tuition will no longer pay for those things, because under this new idea, they pay nothing. So, guess who has to foot the bill?

    That's right: Us. The people. The citizens. The poor and middle classes. We will see a tremendous increase in our taxes to pay for this. It will be crushing, as the lower class is ever increasing with people's money being strangled by tax after tax after tax. The middle class is disappearing in front of our eyes because people cannot make enough money, after taxes, to afford a middle class lifestyle anymore. This tax increase will already be on top of the fact that I pay 25% of my entire income in taxes, and I'm in the lowest tax bracket.

    The last thing the struggling American people need is more taxes. We're dying over here as it is, and this new tax will just be more misery. All for people to learn nothing. And you better bet that it will solely the lower and middle class footing this new bill. You see, Obama and his 1% cronies make sure that they and the top corporations have tax loopholes that they can utilize so they pay nothing on millions and billions in profits. So they won't foot the bill. They are privileged, so they can avoid it. So the bill comes to us, the lower and middle class, to pay for it all.

    In conclusion, a better idea would to be to lower college costs, not get rid of them completely. As said before, student debt is a huge and shameful problem in this country. Lowering college costs would go a long way to fix that, but eliminating it entirely would create a whole new set of problems.

You wonder why us young people are mad

You wonder why us young people are mad?
 Maybe it's because older people say we are lazy, don't work at all,
Yet the average work week is longer than it's been in over a decade.
Maybe it's because they say we're dumb, don't know shit,
Yet we're the most educated generation America has ever had.
Maybe it's because they say we're stupid with our money,
Yet inflation has made it even harder for us just to get by.

Maybe it's because they're saying we're ruining this country,
Yet we're not the ones who tanked the whole fucking economy,
nor were we the ones that launched the disastrous wars of Afghanistan and Iraq,
and Yemen,
and Somalia,
and Pakistan,
and Libya,
and who knows Gods where tomorrow.

Maybe it's because they say we need to more mature,
Yet we're the ones who have to balance two part-time jobs and school at the same time,
We weren't privileged like you mother fuckers,
Who could just work during the summer and bam your school is paid for the year.
We work more for less money,
and you say we should be more grateful?   

Maybe it's because they fuck up shit and then act like it's our fucking fault,
We weren't the ones that shipped all the middle class jobs overseas,
We weren't the ones that have destroyed the standard of living in this country,
We weren't the ones that passed thousands upon thousands of stupid ass government red tape that strangles small businesses,
We weren't the ones that create corporate loopholes so companies that make billions in profit don't have spend a God damn fucking dime on it.

They vote for the same two parties again and again and again,
Political parties that have a proven record for killing jobs,
and then they berate us for not finding jobs.
They scold us for not trusting people,
But never fail in the opportunity to backstab us again and again and again.

They say innovation is the key to future of America,
Yet they castigate us for not doing things exactly how they did them.
They wonder why we can't find jobs,
Yet they make it legal for companies to discriminate in hiring based on race or gender. 
They pass law after law curtailing our freedoms,
Then complain that we get arrested too much.
Well, maybe if you didn't make every third God damn fucking thing illegal,
People wouldn't get arrested as much,
You ever think of that, dickhead?

Yeah, I admit, there are some lazy stupid young people.
But there are lazy and stupid people of every age.
For every lazy and stupid young person you find, I can find a lazy and stupid adult to match.
So your statements mean nothing,
Just because we are the same age doesn't mean we act the same,
Don't generalize a whole group of people,
You wouldn't want us to stereotype you fuckers, now would you?

You think this is a mindless angry rant,
Yeah, maybe it fucking is,
I'm only ranting because I'm constantly being told not to complain,
Not to talk back,
Not to rile up the system,
Not to be ungrateful,
To accept my poverty and fucking deal with it.
All this anger at injustice, at avarice, at arrogance, at haughtiness, at just straight up being a self centered bitch,
Just builds up over the years when we're not allowed to express our opinion, our thoughts, our anger at the shit you've thrown at us.  

Why don't you older people just shut the fuck up,
Get off our fucking God damn backs as we toil and sweat in low wage jobs,
Let us get through this hell as best we can,
This hell you created for us!

Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis for U.S. Senate

      In the race for the Senate seat of Virginia, there is a 3 way battle going on right now. Despite what the media may have told you, there are three men running for the seat. What, the media told you there was only two? Figures, that's a common tactic used by the mainstream media, since they are bought for and the mouthpieces of the two corrupt and long overdue political parties. They ignore 3rd party candidates and therefore, people who only listen to the mainstream media, and nothing else, do not hear about the 3rd party candidates.
     Anyway, back on topic. We have Robert Sarvis of the Libertarian party, Mark Warner of the Democratic party, and Ed Gillespie of the Republican party. The later two will continue to destroy America bit by bit. If you think I'm exaggerating by saying the word "destroy," just look at our country, and tell me it isn't an exaggeration. We are trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt, we are like a crazed psychopath with an unlimited credit card. Our image and strength abroad is the laughing stock of the world. We are the target of attacks because we cannot stop killing people overseas. Our economy is still in shambles, thanks to the crony capitalists and the 1% completely destroying the middle and lower classes of America to gobble up more wealth for themselves. The "War on Drugs" is wrecking havoc through communities around the country, the NSA knows every single thing we do on the internet and the vast majority of Americans don't care, undocumented immigrants pour into this country by the millions, a generation of young adults have no future because of the recession, I mean, if that isn't destruction, then what the fuck is?!
     Warner and Gillespie support all of this destruction. Their parties support and orchestrate all of it, they thrive off it. The 1% has never been better off than they are now. So that's why I'm voting for Sarvis, because he and other libertarians seek to end of all this.
     Here, I'll go by an issue by issue basis, stating Warner's or Gillespie's opinion on the issue, and then Sarvis's, and explain why I like Sarvis's opinion better than the formers.  

     1. The national debt and budget crisis.
     Mark Warner has no problem not balancing the budget, just borrow more money, that's his solution. That, and raise taxes. Because us pesky lower class workers aren't paying enough in taxes, apparently! "Warner told CNN in 2011 that he is convinced that when it comes to managing federal finances, long-term bipartisan planning is a superior way to lowering debt than a balanced budget amendment."
      http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/jun/30/mark-warner/warner-has-changed-position-balanced-budget-amendm/
     Mark Warner has voted with President Obama a whooping 97% of the time. Nothing says lap dog like doing everything your master tells you to. And we all know how much Obama's economic policies have totally wrecked this nation's economy: He's increased the deficit by at least 57%, and he's borrowed 60 TRILLION DOLLARS since taking office.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/
    Warner had a hand in all that....97% of it, to be exact. He thinks going trillions of dollars in debt is perfectly okay. He never stops to think "Hmmmm, maybe we'd better take a look at all of these wealth transferring policies and see if all of them are Constitutional." Damn the Constitution, Warner and his fascist pigs have money to steal!!    
     Conservatives routinely tout that they do not spend a lot and can balance a budget. Apparently they haven't looked at the debt since 2001. Despite stereotypes that Democrats borrow and go into debt and conservatives spend less and balance the budget, the fact is, they're dead wrong. Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, and we all know how well that group of brain dead retards did. Bush increased the deficit by 38%.
     Sarvis won't do what either man did. Straight from his website:

     Let's face it: Neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither Ed Gillespie nor Mark Warner, has any credibility when it comes to protecting taxpayers' money and shepherding scarce resources. Both parties have enacted new, expensive entitlements. Both parties have increased discretionary spending. Both parties have supported wars of choice.

      I pledge to make debt-reduction and balanced budgets a priority. I support simplifying the tax code, reforming entitlements, and cutting bloated budgets—including military spending. And I support a balanced budget amendment and protections against accounting gimmicks.

I’m also the only candidate who supports expanding and protecting both economic and personal freedom—and I understand how they are linked. For instance, our failed War on Drugs contributes to the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world. That’s not only unjust, it's expensive and perpetuates poverty. By unleashing freedom, we will expand economic growth and opportunity, and in turn, reduce the burden on the safety net.

     http://www.robertsarvis.com/debt-spending-and-balanced-budgets

     Sarvis would run the national debt like a person who runs the money of a household. When you have $200 to spend for the week, do you say "Hmmmm, now how to make that $200 last so I don't go over?" or do you say, like a dumbass maniac "Oh I'll just spend all of that and when I need to buy more I'll just put it all on my credit card and after that I'll just get a loan from the bank, etc." 

     A fiscally responsible manages his finances within his budget; a Republican or Democrat says "To hell with my budget, I wanna spend this much, so let's borrow this much right now!"

     2. Civil Liberties.
     Mark Warner and Gillespie see us as cattle, as fodder to grow their sadistic fascist empire. They do not give a flaming fuck about any one of your human rights. If breaking your human rights meaning getting more money or power for them, then they will not think twice about fucking breaking it.

• Ed Gillespie has worked for the Republican party for decades, a party that has persecuted Muslims both here and abroad. He will surely believe he believes in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights when it comes to protecting religion...unless your Muslim. Then to hell with your religion, we're Amurca here! Just type "The Republican party and Islam" and you'll get all the examples you need of how this party persecutes Muslims. Hell, see how the Bush Administration dealt with Muslims here in America after 9/11. 
• Both do not support your freedom of speech. Both Warner and Gillespie support the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the NSA surveillance, etc. If you say anything against them, then you're automatically and without question a terrorist. If they saw this blog, they'd call me a terrorist supporter, even though they're the ones who are supporting terrorism, (we'll get to that in second). So that's the 4th Amendment out the fucking window!
•  Bush created Guantanamo Bay, and Gillespie was part of that administration. Obama loves Guantanamo, keeping it open even though 6 years ago he said he would get rid of it, (when's he going to get that?). Mark Warner has no problem with Guantanamo Bay, after all, he votes with Obama basically all the time, and has been a part of the Democratic party, which has kept the Bay open for years when they could've gotten rid of it. So, both Warner and Gillespie have no problem getting rid of the 5th Amendment if it's in the name of "national security." Oh, and the 6th Amendment as well, that comes under the rights broken by both parties with the creation of Guantanamo and the mass arrests right after 9/11, in which people were kidnapped from their homes in the dead of night, held without charges or access to lawyers. Does everyone just fucking forget about that and act like it didn't fucking happen?!   
• Both parties support asset forfeiture. This is a law that originally was designed to halt drug operations, but now, as usual, the cops abuse this law and use it to legally steal money from people. That's right, if they find you with a large amount of cash, (large amount is subjective of course), then they can say "Oh it's drug money," and without any evidence or a trial, steal your cash. Then, they use it to buy nice and pretty things for their police department. Most people can't get their money back even through a trial, and even then, a trial takes months and months, and all the while, you don't have your money that you legally worked for and paid taxes on. Fucking bullshit.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/09/11/how-cops-got-a-license-to-steal-your-money/ Using cash to pay your landlord because you don't have checks? Better not get pulled over while going from the bank to home, otherwise, you might get robbed  by the boys in blue. Gonna use cash to buy an expensive item and you don't want to use a credit card because of all the identity theft recently? Better not get pulled over coming from Best Buy or Home Depot to home. Sarvis wants to end this fascist and highway robbery rule. He stands up for human rights, saying "No, I don't care who you are. If you don't have evidence that this money is drug money, then you cannot steal it. Every person has the right of personal property, and no one, not even the police, can steal it."  

    3. Foreign Affairs
    This is where libertarianism really shines in comparison to neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Conservatives and liberals are basically identical when it comes to foreign policy, identically fucking retarded. Just take a quick look around the world and you'll see the oppression and destruction wrought by our foreign policy over the decades.

• Mark Warner and Ed Gillespie want the "War on Drugs" to continue. We'll talk about the domestic issues of this "War" in a little bit, but right now, we'll talk about how it affects our foreign policy, more specifically, Mexico, and South American countries, (Yes, Mexico is in NORTH America). Warner, Gillespie, and the whole Democratic and Republican party want to keep giving millions of dollars to the Mexican military and government. People conveniently forget that the Mexican government and military is a fascist machine that oppresses and kills their own citizens. Look at any number of these human rights reports and tell me: Is this where you want your tax money going to?!

          http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/mexico

          http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220667.pdf

          http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/mexico

          http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/LACRegion/Pages/MXIndex.aspx

         Many people refrain from criticizing the Mexican government and military, because "the drug cartels are worse so we gotta support them," or because they don't want to be seen as racist. I say fuck all that shit. Race has nothing to do with it. The Mexican government and military are oppressive regimes that are not in line with American values. They do not deserve our hard earned tax dollars, not because of their race, but because of the specific terroristic and fascist actions their military and government have taken. They take away Mexicans' freedom of speech. They torture innocent people charged with no crime. They do not give them trials. They deny their citizens a way to defend themselves; with only one legal gunstore in all of Mexico, many Mexicans are forced to buy guns illegally to defend their friends and family from cartel thugs and corrupt Mexican "security forces." 

       Not only that, but there are many American "advisers" that actively help Mexican security forces carry out raids and tortures. Now, do you like the fact that armed American men paid by the government are helping a terrorist regime kill and oppress their own citizens? Warner and Gillespie love that. They feed off the blood and suffering of innocent Mexican citizens. They are crazed beasts who's bloodlust is never satisfied. Tens of thousands of Mexicans have died over the decades, and what do Warner and Gillespie say? More guns! More advisors! More repression! Less rights!

      Sarvis is completely opposite of this demonic mindset. He opposes giving military aid to any country, for if no military aid was given, then there is no chance of it being misused for terrorist activities. He opposes military aid, regardless of the race or religion of the country in question. So that means no weapons, ammo, and training for Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, etc, all of these countries who oppress either their own people or another people with U.S. made weapons.
      Not only that, but libertarianism refuses to trade or do business with terrorist governments. Trade and business is taxable, and we cannot allow taxes from our trade and business to be used to oppress and kill innocent people. On principle, that is what we must do. We cannot continue to have innocent blood on our hands just so we can make a quick buck. So, that means no more trade with China, Russia, India, etc, all of those corrupt fascist and/or communist regimes.

      But if we do that, opponents of libertarianism would say, then we would not be able to buy all those cheap goods from these countries, especially China. Good, bring these jobs here back to America, who has plenty of people unemployed or underemployed who would love to work any one of those millions of jobs that would be brought back here. Opponents of this idea would say that the price of these goods would go up, because we cannot make them as cheap as China can. Well in that case, if morales are not involved in the decision process, if we are only going by the price it takes to produce something, then let's reintroduce slave labor in the U.S. to make those goods as cheap as they are made in China. Now you see how stupid it sounds. You support slave labor overseas to make your cheap ass stuff, but then as soon as someone suggests that Americans do the same, then suddenly that's off limits.
     Fact: sometimes you pay a monetary price to stand by your morales. We do that every day by saying no to slave labor, even though slave labor is cheaper than paying a worker to make something. The same must apply to this case: We will pay more for goods in order to stand by the moral of not giving money to terrorist regimes so they can oppress and kill their citizens. Americans are innovative. We will find a way to make those goods in a cheap enough fashion that other Americans can buy them.
     Another plus of libertarian foreign policy is that we only fight if we are being attacked by another country. No more making up data and lies to invade other countries for their natural resources, (Iraq and Afghanistan). No more fighting to keep tyrants and corrupt governments in power, (Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, etc). No more creating enemies so then we have an excuse to fight them (Al-Qaida, ISIS, etc). We have this novel idea that people don't like being bombed for no reason. WHO WOULD'VE FUCKING THOUGHT OF THAT, RIGHT?!

     4. War on Drugs
     So here is where we can talk about the devastating effects the War on Drugs has at home. Warner and Gillespie love the War on Drugs. They want it to be waged forever. They love locking people up for doing actions that affect no one but themselves. Warner and Gillespie have the mindset of "Hey, since I think drug xyz is immoral to use, I'm going to force EVERYONE to think this way by making it illegal!" or "Hey the Constitution says nothing about this drug xyz being illegal. Well fuck the Constitution, fuck Americans' rights, since I think it should illegal, then it is going to be illegal!"

     Both parties want to continue to throw huge amounts of money at this "problem" and it not be solved, ($51 BILLION A YEAR, on average, to be exact). Both of them want to continue to arrest Americans, so many that we have the highest concentration rate of citizens in prison IN THE WORLD. They want to continue to make drugs illegal, even though, if they were legal and taxable, would bring in $46.7 BILLION in revenue annually.
     http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
     Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why the hell do you think it would work for any other drug? Why do you think you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own body? It's not your fucking body!
      Sarvis says "Hey, unless an action is infringing on someone else's human rights, then I don't have a problem with it. It shouldn't be illegal. Things should only be illegal if they break someone else's human rights. Does someone smoking pot have any effect on me? No, so I have no right to tell him/her not to do it." I know, it's so simple that it ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.      

     Republicans usually have a "holier than thou" complex, especially when it comes to drugs. They think they are doing God's work by prohibiting these drugs from being legal. 1st of all: fuck your religion. This country was founded on the principle that people cannot force their religious beliefs onto other people. So if you think smoking weed violates your religion, fine, that's your interpretation of the Bible. But don't go around thinking that is the only possible interpretation and forcing everyone else to abide by your personal beliefs.
     Democrats have a similar attitude, but without the religious overtones. They think they are so damn smart that they know what's best for you, better than you do. They want to be in control of your personal decisions, not you.

     5. Economics
     Bush tanked the economy, and Obama is continuing to hold it down in the mud. There, that should be reason enough not to vote for either party on the principle of economics, because both parties have shown that they are not able to manage the national economy. They only look out for the 1%, their bloc of power, and fuck everyone else.  Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, the one that, you know, ruined the lives of millions of people throughout the world, but especially Americans with its disastrous economic plans. And Warner votes with Obama 97% of the time. So he's signed off on basically every single economic policy that is continuing the recession, keeping the middle and lower classes down, keeping the underemployment high, etc, etc.  

      Does the above picture make your blood boil? Do you understand the full implications of what it is saying? Bank of America foreclosed, it failed, as a business, it tanked. Done. Finished. But Bush couldn't allow that to happen. So he bailed them out on the taxpayer's dime. So the bank still exists. Even though it failed, even though it's own decisions and policies caused its failure, Bush cheated and gave it another life. It's like a student getting an F on a test because he's a dumbass and didn't study, but the teacher feels bad for him and gives him an A anyway.
    But wait, it gets better. After being resurrected by the sweat of ordinary workers like you and me, Bank of America went through tax loopholes, intentionally ignored by the Bush and Obama administrations, and paid ZERO taxes on the $4.4 billion in profits. The administrations ignore these loopholes, because it is their cronies and supporters who exploit the loophole to pay no taxes. Year after year they leave the loopholes intact. See, if you or I tried to do that, we would be arrested for tax fraud. But if you're a member of this exclusive club, created by Obama, then you don't have to pay any taxes at all. Some capitalism. Some democracy.
     How is this remotely fair? I am dirt poor, yet I still pay about 25% of my salary to taxes every year, if you combine all state, federal, and income taxes together. Yet Bank of America, who made a billion times more money than I ever will, did not pay a single penny on their profits.  
     Warner and Gillespie favor bailouts for failing companies. Where's the taxpayers' bailout? Sarvis, on the other hand, does not support intervention in the economy. He has a Master's in Economics from George Mason University, so I think he knows what the fuck he is talking about. If a company fails in the economy, then that gives an opportunity for another company to take that niche and offer a better service/product in its place. This is how a economy is supposed to work. It's like if the government kept on propping up the carriage companies when car companies were rising in the 20's. We wouldn't have cars because the government wouldn't allow the carriage companies to naturally go out of business and make room for the new company of transportation. If Bank of America failed, then a new bank would rise and take its place, only it would learn from Bank of America's mistakes, hence, be a better bank. They would offer better services at better prices. This artificial propping up of archaic/inefficient companies is only hurting the economy in the long run. Bank of America knows it doesn't have to do good in the economy, because if it fails, the government will just bail it out again. There is not incentive to provide a good service at a good price.

     6. Secure the border.
     Both major parties are not seriously guarding our southern border. That is why we have 13 million plus illegal immigrants in this country. It also means that criminals, gang members, and terrorists can cross our southern border with ease, and cause havoc in our nation. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants commit murder in this country. And terrorists have been caught trying to enter the U.S. through the unguarded southern border: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/07/Report-10-ISIS-Fighters-Arrested-Crossing-Southern-Border
     Each party has its own reason to not put more troops at the southern border. They do not care about the welfare or safety of Americans. Democrats keep it open because they have this totally fucked up notion that keeping illegal immigrants out of this country is somehow racist against Hispanics. Well, then that means every country in the world is racist towards Hispanics, including Hispanic countries, because every single country in the world, including every single Hispanic nation, has immigration laws and procedures. Not one single country has completely open borders, because its national suicide. Its completely logical and rational to have procedures about who and when someone can enter your country. But nope, Democrats are paranoid about even possibly being considered racist, so they leave the border open for anyone, including rapists and murderers, to enter our country without anyone knowing. Apparently, not letting people break international law with impunity is racist. Who would've thought. Democrats also don't want the border guarded because the illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat in elections. Coupled with the Democratic campaign of not having to show an I.D. to vote, this idea is a goldmine to get illegal votes in elections for Democrats.
     Republicans purposely leave the border open so they can bash Democrats for it, using the reasons I just listed above. Libertarians however, realize the rationally and logical benefits of not having a completely open and monitored border. So they advocate for a faster legal immigration process while advocating for a tighter guarded border. For how to more tightly guard the southern border, read my past post The immigration reform that we actually need:  http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-immigration-reform-that-we-actually.html
      If any of this seems extreme, that's because it is. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The two main political parties have allowed this situation to become desperate and extreme on purpose, so that when people like me call for the only real solution to the problem, they can whine "Oh you're a dangerous radical, your idea is racist and would never work." This way, they can continue doing whatever they want, and there is no real opposition to their plans, because anyone who offers a decent solution is a "radical."

     So there you have it, the six main reasons why I'm going to vote Sarvis instead of Warner or Gillespie. I invite anyone to explain why Warner's or Gillespie's ideas on any of these six issues are better than Sarvis's. Usually, I don't get any alternate explanations, only that Sarvis's ideas "are too radical and won't work." Like the Democrats and Republicans' ideas are working?! I mean c'mon. Do you want a continuation of the status quo? It sucks! I'm open to change my mind on these issues if someone can convince me of a better plan, but so far, no one has been able to do so.
                     

   

 
    

Radical Feminists are attacking every aspect of white male culture

     Every week or so I see a new news article or blog, or something on the Internet, in which thoroughly pissed off women, claiming that they are feminists, are attacking something that white people, usually males, do. They are attacking a certain action because they view it to be "racist," or "misogynistic." They conclude that in order for white people to not be racist, they have to stop doing this certain action, or at least, do it differently.
     The problem is that these feminists or "social justice bloggers," (which basically means complaining and bitching about some mystical problem that white men make, and the bloggers write these posts while sipping a $6 coffee while in bed in their mansion, or in college, paid by someone else, usuallly *gasp* a male), have gone overboard. They've gone completely apeshit. They're now labeling dozens and dozens of cultural activities that white people, and everyone for that matter, do as racist or sexist. It seems they don't want white people doing anything except to be submissive and not challenge the feminists and people of color on anything that they do.
      White people don't deserve a voice, apparently. We don't deserve to have an opinion on things. We don't deserve to be able to create things of our imagination as we would like to, like books, movies, T.V. shows, etc.We can only do these things if the feminists and PoCs approve, and we can do them only how they say we can. Otherwise, we're racist and sexist.
      The social justice bloggers are not criticizing actions that are truly racist, like calling black people the N word, or seeing a woman in an office building and assuming she is the receptionist and not the CEO. Those actions should be condemned, and I'll be the first to stand with anyone else on calling people out on that.
     But instead, here are all of the actions that now are apparently racist and sexist, that us white people can't do anymore, or at least, we have to do differently to escape the wrath of feminists and social justice bloggers:

     1. Having any organization be majority white, and majority female. If you are a HR manager, you hire on the principle of hiring the best person for the job, regardless of sex, race, or religion, or by any other aspect other than how well a person can do this job. That is the rational, logical thing to do, because if you exclude people based on these aspects, you're potentially excluding the person who is best for the job.
     But the social justice bloggers are saying that's racist and/or sexist. If an organization is majority white or majority male, before they even can determine if the hiring decisions were done based on race or gender, they automatically and without question, condemn the organization as racist and/or sexist. For them, equal results is the answer, not an even playing field. They want it to be diverse, no matter of the qualification of any of the workers involved. I illustrated why this is a problem in my January 30th 2014 post: "People are obsessing over the wrong type of diversity": http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/01/people-are-obsessing-over-wrong-type-of.html
     Here is the part:
     "Let's say 2 grocery stores wants to hire 6 cashiers. 10 people apply to it, and the business ranks them by how good cashiers they are. 1 being the best cashier out of the 10, and 10 being the worst. Next to each number is the race of the person. For the simplicity of the argument, out of the 10 people, all of them are either Black, White, or Hispanic.
     1. Black
     2. White
     3. Hispanic
     4. White
     5. White
     6. White
     7. Black
     8. White
     9. Hispanic
     10. White

      Grocery store #1 has been brainwashed by liberal media. They think having a diverse staff is more important than being a good cashier. So they hire 2 people of every race, being "fair." So they hire numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9.
     Grocery store #2 respects all races, and doesn't give a flying shit what race you are. They want good cashiers, so they do the logical thing and hire numbers 1-6.
      Now compare the two stores. Grocery store #1 skipped persons 5 and 6, even though they were better cashiers than 7 and 9. They passed up better applicants to be more diverse. So they end up with a worse workforce vs grocery store #2.
     Worse workforce=less work=less products/services= crappier products/services=worse company."
     So this is what the social justice bullshitters want companies to do, and with Affirmative Action, they already are. They want companies to sacrifice getting the best employee in the name of diversity. But they only hold that white people do this. Every other race is exempt from having to have a diverse workforce. For example, there are many organizations and companies throughout the U.S., that, for various reasons, have a majority black or Hispanic workforce. Reasons could be because the organization has a cultural mission that pertains to a certain culture, or because of demographics. These organizations are not racist even though they have a majority workforce of one race, according to the feminists and social justice bloggers. But if an organization is majority white, then obviously it is racist, and must hire minorities to not be considered racist.

     2. Make a movie or a T.V. show with majority white actors/actresses or characters. Social justice bloggers complained that the Disney movie Frozen was "racist" because all of the characters in the movie are white: http://www.reflector-online.com/opinion/article_b54cd090-a319-11e3-89e8-0017a43b2370.html
     That's right, a movie that is set in medieval Scandinavia is racist for having all white characters. No matter that medieval Scandinavia had little to no minorities in many places, and certainly not amongst the ruling classes. So what does Disney get for making this movie realistic in this regard? Oh, it's obviously racist. The social justice bloggers think they have the right to tell Disney directors what they can't and cannot do in their own creative productions. The main point of this is: Random people, who are not in the Disney company at all, have no right to tell Disney directors what they can or cannot do when creating a work of their own imagination.
     If I were a Disney director, here is how I would respond: "This is my money, my time, and my effort that I put into this movie. This movie is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. It is a free country. I have the right to do this. I don't tell you what you cannot and can write about. I do not tell you how and how you cannot write. Leave me alone, and I'll continue to leave you alone."
     If you want to see a movie with the majority of characters being from minority races, then go ahead and make one yourself. Odds are, you can't do that, so you can support directors that make movies like that. You can exercise consumer choice, and go see movies that you support and like their aspects. But don't go around telling people how and how they can't make their own movies. That's fascist, that's being a tyrant, that's being a whiny sissy brat. So now, according to the social justice blogger Nazis, white people can only make movies if 1. The majority of their staff is non-white, and 2. If the majority of the characters in the movie are non-white.
     They don't hold this standard to any other ethnic group, only whites. Did any of them call Aladdin racist because every single character in that movie was Arab? No, of course not, because it makes sense to have Arabs in that movie, because it takes place in the Middle East in medieval times. But as soon as Disney does the same thing with another movie, they're racist.
      Do the social justice bloggers apply this ridiculous rule to movies coming from, let's say, Africa? Do they see a film out of Liberia, for example, and say "Oh this movie is racist because all of the actors/actresses are black?" Of course they fucking don't, because that would be fucking ridiculous.
     Not only does this apply to movies, but any other form of entertainment and creative productions, such as books or T.V. shows: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/25/minorities-in-movies-and-television. You wanna write a book with the majority of characters being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show with the majority of actors/actresses being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show that has majority black characters? Oh, you're not racist at all, you're a good white person, we don't have a problem with you!

     3. Stand up for people/issues that don't pertain to you. This only applies to white males. A white female social justice blogger can write all she wants about defending minorities and people of faiths that she is not a part of. She is commended for doing so, as she should be. Anyone, regardless of race or creed, when they stand up for someone else, should be commended. But the social justice bloggers don't want white males, particularly rich white males or male celebrities, to do so. Doing so would be exploiting their "privilege," and therefore, they should just sit down, shut up, and let the wonderful liberal female social justice bloggers and minorities do all the defending.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/08/afflect-dicaprio-white-male-celebrity-activist
     This defies all logic. One would think that the social justice bloggers would love white males defending other people. After all, that means they aren't racist. But no. We aren't allowed to do that either. I guess that makes me a "privileged white male" because I've defended minorities on this blog before. But yet they still condemn us if we don't stand up for other people. So we're racist no matter what we do. It's like they're assuming all white males are racist and sexist no matter what we do to prove the contrary.  

     4. Make video games with majority male or majority female characters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11087308/Women-strike-back-in-the-video-games-sex-war.html#comment-1584308521
     That's right, the feminists and social justice fascists are even stooping down to the lowest of the low to attack white males in their leisure and art activities, (yes, video games are a work of art, at least...the good ones are). The rules of #2 also pertain to video games as well. So if a white person makes a video game with majority white characters, then he's racist. If he makes a video game with little to no female roles, then he's obviously sexist.
     If I was a game developer, I'd reply "It's my money and my time I've invested into making this game. This game is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. I don't tell you what you can and cannot write about. I do not tell you how and how you can't write." If a feminist or social justice blogger doesn't agree with the morales and values a game puts out, don't buy it. Don't play it. If she wants a game where she can play as a female, then make a game like so, or at least support game developers that do so. But don't go around saying "Oh this video game is sexist because you can't play as a female." Half of gamers may be female but the majority of game developers, you know, the ones who actually make the games, are male, and are free to make them however they want to.

     5. Making any type of media, be it movie, show, or book, that has a minority as the villain. That's right, we're no longer allowed to show that there are good and bad people of every race, because that would be racist. We have to show minorities, and women, in a positive role 100% of the time. 

      http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/01/arts/minority-villains-are-touchy-network-topics.html

     So if you want to be certain that your media is not labeled racist, better make a white guy the bad guy. After all, white men are the only bigoted group around here, (as so the social justice bloggers say). Now, if a piece of media had a minority as the villain, and the reason why he was the villain was because of his race, then THAT would be racist. But if there is a villain, who just so happens to be a minority, that is not racist. But the social justice bloggers are saying it is. http://www.racebending.com/v4/blog/olympus-fallen-white-nativism/
      The above blog link is so, so wrong. The movies "Olympus has Fallen" and "Red Dawn" is not saying that, because the villains are Asian, that makes them non-American. The movie does not say nor hint anything remotely at all. I have no idea where the blog writer is getting this idea from. Oh wait, yes I do, out of her own asshole. It's complete fucking bullshit. In "Olympus has Fallen," the reason why the villain is not American is not because he is Asian, but because the character, the villain, is a North Korean Spy. You can be Korean and be an American, but you can't be a Korean who only has North Korean citizenship and be a North Korean spy. That's not racist, it's just his character. Same thing with "Red Dawn." The villain's ethnicity is not what makes him non-American, it's the fact that his character does not have American citizenship: he is a North Korean military officer with North Korean citizenship only. Duh. Fucking duh.
     So villains can no longer be women or minorities, because that would be racist or sexist.

     6. (Updated 2/2/2015)
     Apparently there's something ELSE us racist white people can't do anymore. We can't nominate people for Academy Awards solely based on their talent and the movie they were in. No, now we got to give a certain amount of nominations to minorities, otherwise, we're racist.
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-b-wilkinson/oscars-2015-so-hollywood-_b_6550568.html
     The author is bitching that no actor or actress in "Selma" got an Academy Award nomination. Not satisfied that the film itself got a nomination, no, that's not enough to satisfy the social justice bloggers who demand that every single damn thing in existence follow their specific rules in regards to race and sex. The author loved the actors and actresses in this movie, fine, that's her opinion. But she's so intolerant that she can't possibly comprehend how anyone could not love them as much as she does. If they don't like them enough to give it a nomination, then they must be racist!
      This is another example of an extremist racist liberal who wants everyone to have the exact same opinion on everything that she does. So now we have to take into account the ethnicity of people getting nominated for Academy Awards, making sure that every ethnicity is accounted for, otherwise, we're racist. No longer is the Academy Awards about the honest opinions that the people have for movies, no, now good actors and actresses will be ignored for others who may/may not be as good, but for their race.
     I don't even like the Academy Awards. I think they're a bunch of rich snobs giving awards to God awful movies while ignoring really good movies. But just because I disagree with them doesn't mean that I don't think they don't have the right to voice their opinion. See, that's the difference between me and the radical liberals. If someone says something I don't agree with, I say "Okay, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with your right to say it. As long as its not infringing on someone's human rights, then I don't care what you say." A radical liberal would say "Oh, you don't agree with me on mundane and unimportant issues, (as such the Academy Awards,)? Well, I'm just going to do everything in my legal power, use the media, etc, to make it impossible for everyone to have any other opinion other than my own!"

 

     In conclusion, these points may not seem as significant by themselves. One of these in isolation is not limiting one's creative practices or hiring practices that much. But combined together, they reveal the feminist and social justice blogger's world view: They don't want white males, particularly masculine white males, to do able to do anything. We can't hire employees how we see fit. We can't produce any work of culture, unless it meets their stringent rules that they feel that they are able to shove down on us. In essence, they want us to sit down, don't move, and shut up when it comes to doing things our way, which ironically, is the exact same thing they accuse masculine white males of doing to everyone else. I'm an author, yet to be published. I'll be damned if someone tells me I can't write my book the way I want to. My first book, the majority of the characters are Arab, and the main character is a woman: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/04/an-excerpt-from-my-book-battalions-of.html. But my second book, the book I'm writing right now, the main characters are white. Does that make me a racist for doing so?
     News flash, you stupid social justice blogger brats: People tend to produce works of art and culture about the culture they're a part of. It isn't racist or sexist to do so. Africans tend to write books and make movies about Africans. Asians tend to make T.V. shows about Asians. Are they racist for doing so? Of course not. White people are no different. Are there some racist white people? Of course, there's racist white people out there in the world. There are racists of every race out there in the world. We shouldn't have a set of standards for whites to follow, and then a set of standards that everyone else follows. Cuz you know why? Because that's racist and bigoted, the very crimes that social justice bloggers claim to be fighting, when in fact, they're perpetuating.  
   

Obama needs a Foreign Policy 101

      Since my Associates and Bachelor degrees were in International Studies and Global Affairs, respectively, it's fair to say that I know a lot about the subject. No, I'm not an expert, but I have this thing that most politicians lack called "common sense." I look at Obama's foreign policy and weep. I mean this guy doesn't even try. It is a disaster for everyone in the world...except Obama and the 1%: the mainstream media, the military industrial complex, the rich Democrat CEOs, etc. So that's why he continues to do it, even though, by all standards, it sucks.  It sows destruction throughout the world while the rich overlords reap the benefits. It makes people around the world hate us, which, they have every reason to, given all of the death, oppression, torture, repression, and suffering we cause deliberately with our self-centered foreign policy.
      What would I do differently than Obama? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let me count the ways.
   
     1. Push for the legalization of marijuana. 
     Wait, but this a domestic issue, right? That's what you're thinking, right? Well, it is, but it has grave foreign policy implications for all of South America, especially Mexico. By keeping marijuana illegal in the states, we give the drug cartels in Mexico more money and power, because we create a vacuum of ways people can get marijuana legally. The cartel fills that vacuum. If marijuana was legal, American consumers wouldn't need to go to a drug dealer that gets his drugs from the cartels. They would go down the street to a legal American store, that employes legal workers and pays taxes, to buy some marijuana. That marijuana would be grown legally by U.S. farmers.
     The report and evidence is all right here for anyone to read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/pot-legalization-opium-mexico_n_5112869.html. Legalization in just two states have taken a significant chunk out of the cartels' profit. They hate legalization. Imagine if we made it legal everywhere in the U.S.? Bam, the cartels couldn't stay in business. They'd fold, and thousands of Mexicans would live because the cartels wouldn't be around to kill them.
     This post will not go into the domestic issues surrounding marijuana legalization, as that is a post for another time. This is solely looking at the international implications of such a decision.
     Critics of my idea would say "Oh, well, the cartels will simply shift to another way to make money, such as selling and moving cocaine, heroin, etc." Fine, make all of that legal. Where in the Constitution does it say that Americans cannot use cocaine? You're violating peoples' right to use what they want to. You think using heroin is immoral? Perfectly fine, no one is forcing you to do it. But don't expect to shove your opinion down other peoples' throats, and make them believe that using it is immoral. You are entitled to your opinions and to act on them, as long as they don't violate other peoples' human rights. You are not entitled to make your opinion the law of the land just because you think it is a good idea. This isn't Saudi Arabia.
      So this leads to #2, which is:

     2. Stop financing and training the Mexican military, as well as every other South American military.
      When we train militaries to go and kidnap people, torture them, rape them, oppress them, deny them their basic human rights, and kill them, then we are just as responsible for those crimes as the ones that commit them. If we hadn't given them the training and weapons, then they would not be able to carry out those crimes. Yes, perhaps Mexico would go to Russia or China for training and/or funding, but at least the suffering and killing would not be on our hands, on our conscience. We could say we had nothing to do with it. We would not be responsible for the crimes.
     Look at all of the reports on the Mexican military, how much they oppress and make their own people suffer. You'll never hear about this in the mainstream media, for their overlords could never allow Mexico, our "ally," to look bad.
     http://www.hrw.org/americas/mexico
     http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/mexico
     http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/4/amnesty-internationaltortureinmexico.html
     Do you want your hard earned tax money to give these thugs weapons and training? Huh? What do you say, Obama supporters? Sure seems like you all just love killing and oppressing innocent people who are just minding their own fucking God damn business. Fucking fascists.
     Look at how much money we've given those fucking fascists down in Mexico City over the years:

 

     My opinion doesn't just apply to Mexico. We give weapons and training to many Latin American countries who abuse them the same way Mexico does. Honduras, Columbia, Guatemala, fuck them all, stop all military sales and training until they stop oppressing and killing their own people.You can find dozens of reports on any South American country that we give weapons and training to, just like the reports I linked above the picture. Just type "Honduran military human rights abuses" or "Columbia military human rights abuses" etc, and you will find all the information you need. 

     http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/15/mexico-drugs-us-military/12535271/

     Remember, if Obama did #1 of my suggestions, the cartels would cease to exist, or, at the very least, be a shell of their former selves in terms of power. With them weak and dying, we don't need to pump money and weapons to South American countries to fight the "War on Drugs" anymore.

     But, here's the thing that the Democrats never, EVER, want to talk about. Obama doesn't want the War on Drugs to end. In fact, no one in power in the United States government wants the War on Drugs to end. It's making them too much money. It's giving them too much power. Why would they want it to stop? 

 

     3. Get the fuck out of Somalia.

     We've been in this failed state for decades now. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's exactly what we've been doing in Somalia. We're just killing terrorists and protecting the crony government there. And look at where's that has gotten them. Oh yeah, we sure a big help!

      Every time we kill a "terrorist" (some insurgents may be ordinary people who are fed up with the corrupt government that oppresses them, in that case, we're fighting people who have a legitimate reason to fight the Somalian government), we just create 10 more people willing to fight the Somalian government and us. Friends and family of the deceased will be angry and take up arms. Kill 1, create 10, oh yeah, great plan. 

     There is no group we can morally back in the decades long civil war. The Somalian government is just as bad as the terrorist group it fights. Just look at any of these human rights reports done on it:

     http://www.hrw.org/africa/somalia 

     http://www.refworld.org/publisher,HRW,,SOM,,,0.html 

     http://www.progressio.org.uk/sites/progressio.org.uk/files/human-rights-in-somaliland.pdf 

     4. End all foreign aid to every single country. 

     We need that money here at home. Even if it is not a lot of money compared to our national budget, it is still money that is being used to slaughter innocents. We cannot have that on our conscience, as I talked about in #2. The U.S., by law, is not allowed to finance terrorist organizations. It's time we actually enforced that law. Plus, morally, we cannot give weapons to terrorists and fascists so they can go and kill innocent civilians. Is that where you want your tax dollars to go to?: Torturing a teenager into giving a false confession? The rape of a woman? The murder of a father? No, didn't think so. 

 

     Cut off every single one of these damn countries! They all oppress their own citizens or citizens of other nations. They kill civilians, they deny people their basic human rights. They have secret police that kidnap people in the dead of night. No fucking more!!! We could've used that $14.5 billion in 2013 for any of a hundred other better programs or causes.

     5. Send NATO into Ukraine to protect its sovereignty against Russia.
     I know, such a radical idea, right?? Since when is defending freedom and human rights against a foreign aggressor who wants to put in a puppet dictator that supports said foreign aggressor deemed "radical"? Ask yourself, how did we come to this point in our global society: Where doing such an action is considered "radical" or "extreme"? Isn't it sad that our liberal wussy society is so scared about getting into a fight with a country that could actually fight back that they label such a noble act "radical"?
     Listen, it's really quite simple. U.S. foreign policy should be based on the premise that we reward and support countries that act on our ideals and morals: democracy, human rights, etc. We should shun and oppose countries that act against our ideals and morals: dictatorships, terrorism, apartheid, wars of aggression, etc.
     We apply this logic to the Ukraine/Russia situation. The Ukrainians overthrew a leader that was oppressing them, corrupt, and a fascist. Our morals tell us that the Ukrainians had the right to do that, and that they followed in the example of our founding fathers by doing so. Russia was furious that their pro-Russian stooge was overthrown, so, rather than try and develop a close relationship with the new Ukrainian government, they would rather invade to try and put another pro-Russian stooge in power so that they can control him. Our morals tell us that Russia is in the wrong. We cannot have any interaction with a country who does that. We tried to solve this problem peacefully, but Russia has broken the cease-fire several times. They engage in "diplomacy" only to create another scenario where they can trick their opponents into getting more of what Russia wants. It has shown us that we cannot trust the Putin administration. This has nothing to do with race or religion, it has everything to do with the specific actions the Putin government has taken.
     But Ukraine isn't part of NATO, you say. Well, that is correct. They are not part of NATO. But they have applied to become part of NATO. So NATO should accept their membership and then defend them against aggressor like they do any other NATO member country.
     Critics will say that a NATO/Russia war will be devastating, and therefore, my idea is completely stupid. Well, it will be devastating, I am not denying that fact. But I will argue that it would be worth it. If this is what it takes to finally teach Russia a lesson that they can't just make up shit and invade countries based on blatant LIES, then so be it. It'll be on Russia's head, not NATO's, all of the death and destruction that would happen. Russia escalated this conflict, not Ukraine or NATO. Ukraine would've never overthrown "President" Yanukovych if he hadn't oppressed them, kidnapped them, tortured them, and killed them for simply asking for basic human rights.

    6. DO NOT BOMB ISIS!!!
    This war will be horrible for everyone except Obama, the military-industrial complex, and the oil industry robber barons, which is exactly why he declared war on ISIS, (well, not formally, like, asking Congress's permission to do so. Apparently that is SO 1940's, and "not needed" in the 21st century). I will explain how it will benefit or hurt every single group involved in this conflict.

• The Iraqi people: Obama said he entered this war for "the Iraqi people." Note: aggressors and imperialists always say they are fighting "for the good of the people" to make their bloodthirsty campaign sound legitimate. But the U.S. will only make the Iraqi people suffer more. How? 1. U.S. warplanes always miss their targets a number of times during a bombing campaign. It happens to everyone, not just the U.S. But eventually, the U.S. will hit civilians, either on accident or on purpose. They will cause civilians to die because it is impossible to hit your targets 100% in a chaotic battlefield. 2. By weakening ISIS, Obama will ensure the survival of the Iraqi government, which, remember, oppresses and kills its own civilians ALL THE FUCKING GOD DAMN TIME. See my past post on how horrible the Iraqi government is, and, based on our morals, we cannot support them any longer: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-should-us-do-about-isiss-advance.html. 3. Each ISIS death at the hands of the U.S. will enrage their family and friends, causing even more recruits for ISIS. They will want to fight even harder and slay even more innocent Iraqis to satisfy their bloodlust which was fueled by their friend or family member's death at the hands of U.S. bombs. 
• The U.S.: The world will see the U.S. bombing yet again more Muslims in an attempt to protect an oppressive, corrupt puppet government. This will enrage Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They will flock once again back to Iraq and Syria to fight "the good fight." As if we didn't need the Muslim world more pissed off at us. Just like the 2003 Iraq war drew in thousands of fighters from around the world to fight the imperialistic U.S. occupation, so will this conflict. We have 1,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq right now, and more come every month or so. How long before ISIS attacks them? ISIS has anti-air weapons in its arsenal. How long before they shoot down one of our aircraft? Nothing gives a morale booster like shooting down a multi-million dollar aircraft, which seems invincible by the sight of men armed with assault rifles, with a missile that cost a couple of thousand dollars. The world will continue to isolate us as a result of our imperialistic, blood spilling actions. We haven't defeated the Taliban in 13 years. What makes you think we can defeat ISIS, who is a lot stronger than the Taliban, any faster? This will just accelerate attacks on Western civilians worldwide as well as U.S. soldiers. 
• The Syrian people. Yes, ISIS commits barbaric acts of terrorism and oppression against the Syrian people. No one in denying that. But by weakening ISIS, you are strengthening another entity it is fighting: the Assad government. And the Assad government is just as bad as ISIS, despite what the mainstream media says. In fact, the Assad government has caused infinite more times death and destruction because it has been around for decades. ISIS has only been around 2 or 3 years. Assad kidnaps people, ISIS kidnaps people. Assad tortures people, ISIS tortures people. Assad beheads people, ISIS beheads people. Assad kills people simply for their religion, ISIS kills people simply for their religion. They are one in the same, and our morals tell us that we cannot support either entity. 
• The military-industrial complex: Oh they're loving this. Killing and maiming is their business, and with this newest war, business is good! (Yes I quoted Dave Mustaine, deal with it bitches). This war means more ludicrous contracts for companies producing weapons, vehicles, and hardware for the U.S. military. This means more opportunities to test their weapons. This means the politicians will push for more defense spending, because anyone who is against more defense spending is obviously a liberal terrorist (heavy sarcasm). 
• The oil industry: Pushing ISIS off the oil fields of Iraq and letting the puppet Iraq government take back control of them is perfect for the oil industry. Now they can continue to steal Iraq's natural resources and sell them for ridiculous prices so they can lavish in their unbridled wealth!

     To end, this article sums up why Obama's ISIS speech was an utter and complete load of fucking horseshit:  http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/barack-obama-islamicstatestrategyspeech.html?utm_content=opinion&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow 

     7. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan. 

     We have been in Afghanistan for 13 YEARS. That's since I was in 6th grade for crying out loud. More than half of my life we have been in this stupid, ridiculous, unnecessary war. Al-Qaeda wanted us to get stuck in Afghanistan for years, and guess what, our stupid incompetent leaders fell for it. They did 9/11 so we'd get stuck fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, (btw, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are two completely different organizations. Contrary to the mainstream media, the Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11). In the meantime, Al-Qaeda spread to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The Afghanistan War was one of the best things to happen to Al-Qaeda.

     We're wasting billions and billions of dollars every year by staying in Afghanistan, while all of our efforts are making Americans less safe, not more safe. The war has tarnished our international image, making us the laughing stock of the world because our military cannot defeat men hiding in caves with AK-47s and goats. The war has been a gathering point for jihadists all over the world to hone in their skills so they can create more mayhem and death in other parts of the world. The military-industrial complex is loving the war though. 13 years of solid business with the military and related government agencies. 13 years to test out all their various weapons. 13 years of happy senators passing big "defense" bills. 

     If we really wanted to defeat Al-Qaeda, we would have to do it a completely different way that neither Obama nor Bush has done. But instead, we sought out to put in a puppet government in Afghanistan, that is corrupt and oppressive, so we can control it, and, in the process, control it's vast mineral wealth for ourselves, as well as control a strategic point in Asia.

     So there you have it, Obama's foreign policy 101 that he will never do because that would actually help spread freedom and stop suffering throughout the world. No, he'd rather kill people and plunder countries so he can line his already fat pockets with even more money. No one is going to stop him. The Democrats cheer him on as he continues to slaughter thousands, and the Republicans would do the same thing if they were in charge, (they proved that with Reagen and Bush). America feeds off chaos and death around the world. Because, who would sell weapons to terrorists, put in puppet governments, and steal resources if we didn't do it?!       

         

    

   

     
      

Something that is grinding my gears

   This is going to be a short post because the topic is really so mind numbingly simple, and it bugs the living shit out of me that people refuse to fucking see it. Topic: Celebrities' nudes got hacked from the iCloud and distributed throughout the Internet, including Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, and Kristen Dunst. There seems to be two camps of opinion on this issue.
    One: It's the celebs' fault that this happened.
    Two: The celebs didn't do anything wrong, and it's all the hackers fault.
    What I think of it: The hacker committed a huge crime, but, BUT, the celebs could've taken easy, god damn easy steps to make this significantly less likely to happen to them.
     The people in camp two will immediately and without question condemn me as a victim blamer, a women hater, a "privileged" male, etc, etc, all the usual feminist bullshit insults they sling around without even listening to what the other person has to say.
     But just fucking read what I wrote: A crime happened. The hackers committed a crime. <----- Okay?! It is not victim blaming to say that the celebs could've done a couple of things that would've prevented this. It's just like if a person walked down the street of a crime ridden neighborhood, waving handfuls of cash to people, saying "Wow, just look at how much MONEY I have!" If I was a police officer responding to that person getting robbed, I would say to him "Wow, you are a dumbass, what did you think was going to happen?! But, BUT, these robbers have committed a crime against you. You are a victim of robbery, and I will pursue them with all of my resources."
    This is just common sense. There are plenty of actions that can reduce the likelihood of a certain crime being committed against you. Our parents teach us this, teachers tell us this, the police tell us this, etc. Saying a simple concept of common sense is not victim blaming, nor is it denying a crime took place.    
      The concept of the Cloud is a horrible, terrible idea. To store sensitive, personal, or top secret information in the Cloud is just like wearing a T-shirt saying "Rob me." Hackers always can adapt faster than industry standards and defenses. You wonder why you hear of a massive credit card breach or the stealing of sensitive information more and more every day? You wonder why identity theft is rising and rising each year? Because more and more companies and organizations are storing their information in the Cloud because it is cheaper, completely forgoing the fact that it significantly more at risk to be stolen just to save a few bucks. Once again, people trade convenience for security in a heartbeat, then get all surprised when their personal information is stolen.
     Taking nude pictures of yourself is stupid, and quite frankly, narcissistic. Who the fuck are you gonna send them to? Your boyfriend/girlfriend? Why the fuck would you do that? Just do it in front of them, that's what people have been doing for thousands of years and no one's had a god damn problem with it. Are you going to send them to a co-worker, classmate, etc? Even a dumber idea! Your morales are out the fucking god damn door! Taking nude pictures of yourself and posting them to a storage place that is so god damn easy to hack into is even more stupid.
    What the people in camp two want to do is to do whatever they want to do in life, whether it be taking nudes of themselves, getting shitfaced at a party, or showing thugs a bunch of money, and not face any consequences for their dangerous and risky actions. Sorry, the world is suddenly not going to rid itself of all criminals just to fit your happy "the whole world is sunshine and butterflies" outlook. Everyone has to take actions to defend themselves against criminals. Stating this basic fact of life is not victim blaming. Get that through your god damn heads. Take responsibility for your risky and stupid actions. Man the fuck up.
    Again, a reminder for the people in camp two, hacking peoples' information is illegal. IT IS A CRIME. The police should catch these criminals and bring them to justice. Nothing in those past three sentences contradicts the fact that the celebs did something really stupid.     
     

It Seems Obama Has Broken Nearly Every Campaign Promise He Made

      I wonder if Obama supporters feel stupid now. They elected him on the premises that he would end America's disastrous wars, fix the economy, end racial and class divisions and inequalities, close Guantanamo Bay, etc, etc. And guess what.
     HE HASN'T DONE ANY OF THAT.
     If I was a Obama supporter I'd be mad as hell, (wait a minute, I'm not an Obama supporter and I'm still mad as hell!). He's a freaking liar. He says whatever sounds nice at the moment, and then later, just does whatever will benefit him and his 1% supporters the most. I mean, how much of a freaking dick do you have to be to do that?!
     Let's just go through the list of things he'd said he would do once he became president, and hasn't:

     1. End the war in Iraq.
     He just launched us into another war in Iraq against ISIS not a week ago! One of his pillars of his election campaign was that he would end the war in Iraq. Well now we're bombing people and sending in hundreds of soldiers on the ground. And don't give me that "Oh ISIS would commit a genocide, we have to stop them in Iraq otherwise they'll attack us here!" Do you guys have amnesia or something? Don't you remember the justifications for the Iraq War in 2003?! It was the same fucking bullshit! You guys act like since this is a "humanitarian" mission, suddenly we "have" to do it, and all past promises about NOT fighting in Iraq are looked over because of the "selflessness" of our character and the "direness" of the situation.  You people are so easily fooled by the government and the mainstream media.
     Wake-up call. America cannot be the world's police. Look at where it's gotten us today. We're riddled in debt and we're the laughing stock of the world. Millions and millions of people downright despise us because of our disastrous foreign policy that wrecks the lives of literally hundreds of millions of people around the world. We cannot save every single group of people that are about to die. We do not have the money or manpower to do so. We're trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, and yet we're spending billions more for jet fighters and bombs. So, yes, I feel sorry for the Yazdis, and we should give them and the Kurds weapons, but airstrikes and boots on the ground is a violation of Obama's promise to end the war in Iraq. It's not a different war, it's just a continuation of the same war we blundered into in 2003. Our actions caused this fucking mess in the first place, and now we're back at it. It's like Hercules continuing to cut off the Hydra's heads. When one is cut, two takes it's place. And yet we're still hacking away, thinking the same policy that failed before will magically work now.    

     2. Eliminate all oil and gas tax loopholes.
     During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to eliminate "special tax breaks for oil and gas companies, including repealing special expensing rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms."
      None of these things were included in the major tax bill that avoided the "fiscal cliff” in January 2013, and when we asked the American Petroleum Institute whether they had been enacted earlier, he said that none have been changed under Obama. (The spokesman also took issue with Obama"s characterization of these as "special tax breaks,” saying that some of the tax provisions Obama cited, such as foreign tax credit benefits, affect many businesses, not just the oil and gas sector.)
     Well OF COURSE Obama didn't do that. That would hurt the 1% that finances and supports his insane rule. He said that back in 2008 to sound all "anti big business" and "for the people." And now, WHAT A SURPRISE, once he's in power, he doesn't do what he said he would. He lets these loopholes exist so the 1% can get away with paying close to nothing in taxes, while the common folk, (hint that's ME and YOU!) are stuck paying a sizable chunk of our meager paycheck in taxes, leaving us close to nothing to live on.

     3. Allow imported prescription drugs.
     During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." But such a provision was not included in the final health care law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president.
     The motivation for the promise came from an existing trend of Americans crossing the Canadian border to buy cheaper prescription drugs. Yet for the most part, it remains illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs there -- for "safety reasons," the Food and Drug Administration says.
     But in the wake of negotiations with the prescription drug industry -- one of the first big health industry players to support the White House's health care reform effort -- Obama's drug importation promise faded into the background. Now, with passage, it's officially off the table.
     Instead, the drug industry will pay billions of dollars annually in new fees beginning in 2012, and brand-name drugmakers will provide a 50 percent discount on prescriptions filled through the Medicare Part D coverage gap beginning in 2011. 
     OF COURSE he wouldn't keep his promise, that would miss out in an opportunity to tax billions and billions of more dollars for him to waste! Who cares if Americans can't get the medicine they need, he's got the ones he needs!

  

     4. Require employers to provide employees seven paid sick days per year.

     President Barack Obama began his term with significant union support due to the many promises that he made about expanding workers' rights and benefits. Among these promises was Obama's commitment to require employers to provide their workers with seven paid sick days annually. No such requirement currently exists on a national level.
      To accomplish this goal the administration has expressed support for the Healthy Families Act. The bill mandates that employers grant their employees one hour of leave for each 30 hours worked. Workers can use this leave if they are ill, to care for a dependent, or recover if they are a victim of domestic violence. The requirement applies to all businesses with over 15 employees.
      Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced versions of the bill in 2005 and 2009. On both occasions the bill stalled in committee and expired after the new session of Congress began.
      DeLauro reintroduced the Healthy Families Act in May 2011. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, did the same in the Senate. History seems to be repeating itself, however, as both bills are awaiting action in committee.  

     Who cares if the working people, a.k.a. the people who actually create wealth in this country, have any time to rest? Obama can take a break anytime he wants. Congress works 1/3 of the fucking year. Democrats shell out unemployment benefits to their stooges, oh, I mean, "voters," for years. You know who pays for your lazy ass neighbor to sit on his ass and watch T.V. all day? That's right, I do. You do, unless you're that lazy neighbor. 

    5. Grant habeas corpus rights to "enemy combatants." 

    When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he told voters he strongly supported efforts to restore habeas corpus rights to people the U.S. government had deemed enemy combatants.
      Habeas corpus is the legal right, embedded in the U.S. Constitution, which allows any prisoner held by the American government to challenge his or her imprisonment. A president may suspend that right only "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,” according to the Constitution.
       Protecting habeas rights was a priority for Obama early in his career as a U.S. senator. Project Vote Smart, a website that collects public statements by politicians, shows 21 instances where he mentioned it in press releases, stump speeches, media interviews and presidential debates.
      "This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person,” Obama said in speech on the Senate floor in 2006. "By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.”
      At the time of Obama's comments, roughly 400 terrorism suspects were locked up in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base prison in southern Cuba, down from nearly 700 in 2003. President George W. Bush's administration had held those prisoners indefinitely without charging them or trying them beginning in 2002 -- in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Prisoners did have access military tribunals, but the tribunals did not allow detainees to see, hear and contest all evidence being used against them.
      Supreme Court rulings in 2004, 2006 and 2008 confirmed that prisoners at Guantánamo did have habeas rights and the military tribunals were not sufficient substitutes. The U.S. government transferred more than 500 prisoners before Obama took office (166 remained in November 2012). Under the Obama administration, however, the force of those rulings have weakened.
      "President Obama is steadily returning Guantanamo to the secretive and hopeless internment camp that he vilified as a candidate,” wrote Azmy Baher, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an August op-ed in The Washington Post.

     Who cares about the rights of people, who, legally, have not been charged with anything, nor have been convicted of any crime? Obama don't have time for that, he's too busy blowing up weddings in Pakistan or protecting dictators in the West Bank or Iraq. 

    6. Raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. 

     Who cares about the working poor, the people who slave out in the sun or over a hot stove hours on end just to put food on the table for their family?! Obama and his supporters got all what they want, screw everyone else! Minimum wage has to keep up with inflation, otherwise, people cannot live off it. In these hard economic times, there are plenty of adults and people who need to be the #1 breadwinner in the house that can ONLY find minimum wage jobs. In a strong economy, only teenage kids work minimum wage jobs, but in a recession, that is no longer the case.   

     7. Close Guantanamo Bay. 

      Obama loves breaking peoples' human rights. I swear he does it so often and to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people that he must get off to it. He's obsessed with it. And what better way to break peoples' human rights by:

• Kidnapping them all over the world.
• Not charging them with anything in over a decade.
• Not giving them access to a lawyer or a diplomatic representative from their country, or visits from their family. 
• Giving them no trial. 
• Torturing them. 

    I mean, that's his fucking wet dream!!

    Yes, I insulted the president. Why? Because he's a despicable, vile person. If you commit murder, torture, and oppression, then yes, anyone has the right to insult you and call you out on your crimes. We can insult Saddam. We can insult Bin Laden. Why the fuck can't we insult Obama? Just because he's the president? Just give him a free pass on all of his crimes just because of his title? Nope, I don't care who the fuck you are, if you commit a crime, I'll get in your God damn face and say "You have committed this crime." That's no better than giving a policeman a free pass to beat the shit out of an innocent bystander, "Oh he's a policeman so we won't say anything." It's an abuse of power! Call him out on it! What kind of world do we live in that we allow a man to murder, torture, and oppress hundreds of millions of people, don't say anything about it, but then AS SOON as one person insults him, OH, that's suddenly barbaric and unacceptable?!?!